Can Space Nerds Get Along? 161
An anonymous reader writes "The Space Review asks whether space enthusiasts can ever get past the humans/robots and private/government flamewars. The article argues that space politics is a non-zero-sum game, and that space science, human spaceflight and private spaceflight can all co-exist. The debate between space and Earth is resolved in the same way: a non-zero-sum game that supports both Earth projects and space projects."
Re:Private sector space (Score:5, Insightful)
We DO (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, maybe there's a few like Bob Park (http://www.bobpark.org/) that rants on and on about robots even when people fly, but he's not a space nerd, he's a politics nerd who thinks too much that the space program applies to him personally. Other than those few, the idea what we bicker bitterly is once again a media construct -- they have to make news where none exists to fill the white space. That's why when they need filler, they go to those few, if anyone at all.
Re:Private sector space (Score:2, Insightful)
Hopefully with privately owned space flight in the works, it may help with the travel times across the globe.
Human Exploration (Score:5, Insightful)
Human exploration has always been about the inner struggle. Collectively, we watch struggles and use those that struggle as proxies. Our souls go with them, be it a sporting match, a voyage across the world, or a rocket into space.
In the end, the human involvement in space exploration, the human touching foot on a ground that is not Terran, is about the expansion of the human experience and the human soul. It is not about the attendant science, its about Man's struggles, triumphs, defeats, and lessons.
The science can be done by robots.
Nerds don't work like that (Score:5, Insightful)
Get along? Never. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way to win is not to play. - Joshua (Score:5, Insightful)
HEX
Re:Get along? Never. (Score:4, Insightful)
The implication in your post was that the various arguments in the open-source community do more harm than good. I would argue just the opposite: although flamewars are not a good thing, overall the open debate that the open-source crowd engages in is a productive way to "get it right" and improve the state of the art. I should also note that despite the intensity of these debates, no one (that I'm aware of) actually takes them to the extreme of violence. At worst, people get their feelings hurt. I should also note that the egregious examples of flamewars and trolling are not unique to the FOSS movement--those trolls don't even care about the topic at hand, and just switch to some other "hot topic" when on another discussion board. You can't really blame FOSS for the universal existence of assholes.
Similarly, I just don't see the disagreement in space enthusiasts and scientists. They debate, sure... but that is precisely what is needed to determine optimal solutions. No... Avoiding debate is not the answer. I would rather argue that the mature thing to do is to not get overly emotional in the debates. Arguments are a good thing--that's how progress is made. Maturity is knowing how to think rationally in a debate, and to change your mind when others have presented compelling evidence or logic.
Doesn't matter (Score:2, Insightful)
Robot advocates, take an astronaut out for a drink (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, we are talking about a zero sum game over the short term .
The reason has to do with marginal gains. The greatest marginal gains in manned spaceflight we'll ever see were in its first fifteen years. Currently robotic exploration provides the greatest bang for the buck, including in improving technologies needed for the next leap in manned flight. We can leap over the immediate marginal discrepancies by spending lots and lots more money on manned missions. Given enough money, it is possible that we can outperform the same investment in exclusively robotic missions. Given the money I think we will see spent on it, serious near term advances in human spaceflight is not going to come from public funding.
A realistic program to put a people on Mars in ten or twelve years would be great. But a vague plan for a manned Mars landing that is four Presidential administrations off does less for every priority, even manned space exploration, at more cost. The space budget will be siphoned off into paper projects and technology demonstrations that, despite budget busting expense, will be inconclusive and too infrequent to build a strong experience base from.
Consider this. Mercury program: twenty-one unmanned flights, seven manned flights. Gemini: two unmanned flights, twelve manned flights. Apollo (up to but not including first landing): aproximately twenty four unmanned flights, five manned.
Total: forty seven major unmanned flights, twenty four manned flights before we had the experience and proven technology to land on the moon. A huge fraction of the "manned" space program was in fact unmanned.
Naturally this takes nothing from the fact that manned flights were much more expensive and elaborate. But each mission, manned or unmanned, was a rung in the ladder of achievement that culminated on the moon. Where are the intermediate rungs on the ladder to Mars? Yes, I agree manned and unmanned exploration are a plus sum game in the long term. However, this doesn't mean the best way to spend your money is on everything at once. You put your money on what returns the biggest return you can afford. I'd love to invest in Berkshire Hathaway stock, but at $110,000/share, it's too rich a game for me. I'd love to see a real manned Mars mission in my lifetime, but rejiggering the existing budget and throwing in a bit of spare change isn't going to pay for one.
I'd propose we use the same money that would go into a mythical multi-generational manned Mars mission into becoming, very quickly, good at executing Mars missions. In other words, lets do lots of expendable, frequent unmanned missions until we know how to do Mars really well. At that point, a manned expedition within a short time is much more realistic and desirable, both because of our improved expertise, and because a manned mission represents something different, something with higher marginal return.
I think that manned space exploration is better targeted at Earth orbit missions for now. Again the objective should be developing expertise that makes it more routine. Do we really believe we have what it takes to undertake a responsible manned Mars mission in ten years? I don't. More experience in orbit will yield more expertise per dollar, as well as open up new possibilities for applied science and technology that could offset the cost.
And, we should not neglect orbital study of the Earth.
That's quite enough to be doing with the money we're likely to have. It's also more likely to result in a manned Mars mission in our lifetime.
Re:The only way to win is not to play. - Joshua (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Human Exploration (Score:3, Insightful)
To apply your thinking to situations already past or currently present:
It is the quest that is built into our souls. It is not science fiction. It is the desire to know and to find out what is around the corner. When you have a significant sized population, the desire to start discovering, the desire to move a small fraction of that population to somewhere new takes root. Westward expansion, landbridge migrations, ocean expeditions all have their roots in this. Always preceded by an intrepid few who blaze the trail and bring back news.
elrous0, you may wish to sit and stagnate, but there are those who will always move humanity forward to newer more glorious fields. We wish you luck, but in the end, we also leave you behind us.
Re:Doesn't matter - the Chinese will get there fir (Score:3, Insightful)
well, yeah, sort of (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't matter - the Chinese will get there fir (Score:3, Insightful)
The Northern Pacific and the Arctic were as difficult for the 17 and 18th century seafarer as the space is for us nowdays. May I remind you that prior to Vitus Bering and Chirikov every single attempt to explore the area has ended with a loss of the ship and all hands. Bering payed his life and the life of half of his crew for just mapping the southern coast of Alaska and the Aleut chain. So did many crews after him.
Actually our current is more the level of Amundsen and the Fram which happily travelled around the area freezing in ice for prolonged periods when necessary. So can we in space. We cannot get fast from A to B, but we already possess the technology level to do so slowly.
Yep, it is not the level of an Arctica class icebreaker which can nowdays sail around the arctic from the Barentz to Alaska and back as it sees fit, but before you build one you have to go through the sufferings of early discoveries and through long and tedious voyages on the Fram.
Sorry if the analogy seems far fetched. IMO it is not.